Good, maybe even brilliant point. You might have just put yourself up on an elite level with the likes of Richard Epstein at the University of Chicago Law School, a noted if not the preeminent Takings Clause legal scholar, assuming this is an original thought. Indeed, copyrights and patents are restrictions on the real property of those who are not given the grant of exclusive monopoly distribution. Real property is prohibited from being shaped in ways that copy ideas, including transferring the shape of hard drives to contain information electronic bits that copy copyrighted songs. Every time copyright length is increased, it certainly is a takings issue diminishing the value of all real property, transferring value from one group of citizens (the public domain) to another group of citizens (copyright holders) without compensation. No, it actually transfers public domain property into the hands on an exclusive monopoly minority. At a minimum, the law should demonstrate that increasing the length of copyright increases the progress of the useful Arts, and I doubt those increases ever have even pretended to offer such justification.
Copyright Takings is a new legal argument that could possibly get some good mileage at the appeals level, especially including at the Supreme Court with the recent new appointees. Current copyright law is unconstitutional on many different levels. And that argument can certainly be applied to all copyrighted works that have had the length of exclusive monopoly extended from previous shorter copyright term lengths. It could be useful in a challenge of laws like the DMCA and the past copyright extension acts, as additional argument on top of the constitutional challenges on the grounds of excessive fines and non-contemporary limited copyright term lengths.
The purpose of copyright as originally defined, in line with the purpose of the constitution itself, is to protect the weak from the strong. It is easy for a person or entity of means to steal a creative work. And when I say steal, I don't mean copyright infringement, I mean actual deprivation, actual stealing. You couldn't possibly be more wrong or less informed. The language of the Constitution is clearly plain:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Thus, the *purpose* of the copyright is not to "protect the weak from the strong", but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And the answer to the question of the Promotion of Science and the useful Arts is purely a question of ECONOMIC DEMONSTRATION. The elimination of copyrights and patents BEST PROMOTES the Progress of Science and useful Arts, even more so in the contemporary Age of the Internet where distribution is limitless and instantaneous. Copyrights and Patents only cause artificial scarcity and inhibit progress. All the money wasted in Court costs, private policing, politician laws, lawyer fees, insurance, intentional ignorance from reverse engineering prohibitions, is money that is not being spent on new Science and new useful Arts.
Creators can be and are compensated voluntarily in the free market for creative production. And they would be even more better compensated with the elimination of copyrights and patents. The ultimate economic incentive for new creation doesn't begin nor end with artificial government interference in the market. CASE CLOSED. Copyrights and Patents are UNCONSTITUTIONAL precisely because they INHIBIT the Progress of Science and the Useful arts. No other tangential points such as the welfare of authors are material or matter to the fundamental Constitutional justification of ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY.
It would make for an interesting academic study to discern the average length of fair use clips, from movie review television shows, to.mp3 clips from iTunes and Amazon, to excerpts of text from books, to photographs in magazines of pieces of artwork like a painting or statue. It ranges from like 1% to 100% depending upon the medium.
Say the average song length is 200 seconds, a 5 second clip is 2.5% of the work, a 30 second clip is 15% of the work. Most book publishers limit the resale of academic for sale course packets to 10% of the book (if more than 10% they generally insist the book be purchased if it's still in print). Paparazzi can take as many pictures of celebrities in public as they wish.
But I would argue the music industry itself has set a 30 second clip fair use standard as evidenced by retailer "best practices", let's call it "prior art".:P If the music industry were to insist on 5 second maximum clip lengths, no doubt that would cut into the business profitability of internet retailers like iTunes and Amazon as lower sales resulted from consumers gambling on unknown Monty Hall boxes of quality and value.
"Making something available in a folder" is basically the internet, in a nutshell. The exceptions they speak of should rather be the rule. Staggering. Yes, these people are, in a nutshell, morons. They also fail to realize that their "policing" actions of tracking, copying, and examining the contents of exchanged files is exactly the same thing that all P2P program users do. "Deep packet inspection" software programs is the literal embrace of P2P file sharing, just without the consent of a different group other than RIAA copyright holders (except when the RIAA minions copy files that are not their copyrighted content).
So if P2P file sharing is "illegal" then the "deep packet inspection" software programs the RIAA are insisting Universities install are also "illegal", no matter whether certain aspects of both processes are more or less automatic or more or less manual. If the RIAA has a right to wholesale examine the contents of all files on the internet to look for copyright violations, then so too does every single individual P2P user. The label "pirate" is nothing less than a fraudulently inaccurate intentionally distorted ad hominem criminally impeding the process of both legal and educational discovery.
There is no proof, either way. And you are trying to assign liability to someone for the discrete separate actions of other parties, and in that case every distributor could shirk responsibility by assigning blame to a prior distributor, legal or illegal, which would be just as absurd. These files are not instantaneously copied in whole either. And copying parts of files is consistent with fair use. Every packet of a file which is copied in real time is copying fractions of a second of possibly or possibly not copyrighted content. Every single packet which is copied is fair use legal. There is no copyright infringement whatsoever from copying anywhere from 5 second to 30 second clips of copyrighted songs. Legal thirty second clips are routinely made available from many sources from "For Sale" retailers.
There are not any signs posted on these files. There's no "No Trespassing" sign, no "Beware of RIAA Dog" sign, no "Copyright" sign, no "Wet Floor" sign. And such signs wouldn't exist if they didn't effect liability. We may as well hold the RIAA criminally liable for songs containing "mature lyrics" which are heard and distributed to minors since those songs are allegedly the "property" of the RIAA. As there is no definitive discerned private party copyright demarcation on most if not all.mp3 files, distribution liability cannot begin before the parties are notified by certified legal disclosure that the files are copyrighted.
Actually the RIAA may be trying to forge "evidence" and committing fraud by artificially spamming take down notices in order to trigger legal clauses calling for penalties on academic funding and requiring the purchase and installation of their proprietary "deep packet inspection" spyware software programs. They've been pushing legislation that equates "take down notices" or subpoenas with evidence of copyright infringement requiring legislative action triggers. This is an attack on taxpayers, an attack on education, and an attack on Constitutional civil law.
Much of our fantasizing about extraterrestrial life has assumed that there is some way to travel faster than light and we just haven't discovered it yet. However, what if there really isn't? What if physics simply won't allow faster than light travel? Because that's just demonstrably wrong. If the claim that even light cannot escape a black hole is true, then that is evidence of a force greater than light speed. Also, if the speed of light can be slowed down, it can be inversely sped up. Same for sound. And currently we have no problem moving heavy matter at the speed of sound.
Since this is "religious" theoretical physics, why doesn't all matter randomly break down into simplest particle elements and travel randomly in all directions? Why is the Universe proposed to simulate a flat plane rather than a sphere? Why doesn't all matter stick in the exact same (smallest imaginable) point? How can new stuff "squeeze" in, such as the formation of stars and planets? Light is a part of the set Universe; how could the universe "expand" or it's expansion "accelerate"? Really, do theoretical physicists claim the universe could never at any time have expanded at more than the speed of light, all the way back to the "big bang", and that it has been constantly accelerating ever since the beginning? The expansion of the Universe has been constantly accelerating, but still accelerating at less than the speed of light ever since the beginning? And why and how does light even travel in the first place?
I don't think we fully understand the properties of magnetism, let alone its effects on light and matter. IMHO, I think the theories are faulty on "time". That's the only constant in the universe; time can only move forward at a constant "speed". It's impossible to go back to "before", and it moves at the exact same speed everywhere, always. I think all those examples of "clocks" moving at different speeds on spaceships versus the Earth, are complete B.S. Nobody would travel and come back still "young" to find their friends "old"; everyone would always age exactly at the same rate, no matter where you went, what you did, or what speed you did anything at, unless you affected the speed of human aging itself (a much more likely first technological breakthrough than faster than light speed travel), which is completely independent of "time".
P.S. Is it possible to calculate how fast the Earth is moving in the Universe, and if so, what is the answer? Or is three dimensional x,y,z reference in the Universe impossible w.r.t the Universe itself? If the latter, it would seem to me saying light speed is the maximum speed for all matter is hugely *speculative*, just as *speculative* as the claim that faster than light speed travel is possible.
And somebody tell me how telescopes allow us to see "further" light if light cannot be sped up? Don't telescopes imply we see further light sooner, thus affecting the observation of distance and speed of light w/o.r.t. time? Shouldn't the idea of telescopes and binoculars be impossible if the speed of light was finite constant?
Copyrighted files are not banned "illegal" things. Perhaps you mean "intent to illegally distribute" to become illegal? So like drugs, if you have say more than 4 or 5 copyrighted files you are guilty of "intent to illegally distribute"? And that would apply to all files on a computer connected to the internet? Lol. Once again, that would be trillions of dollars of legal liability and total legal systemic meltdown.
Slashdot Mirror
Good, maybe even brilliant point. You might have just put yourself up on an elite level with the likes of Richard Epstein at the University of Chicago Law School, a noted if not the preeminent Takings Clause legal scholar, assuming this is an original thought. Indeed, copyrights and patents are restrictions on the real property of those who are not given the grant of exclusive monopoly distribution. Real property is prohibited from being shaped in ways that copy ideas, including transferring the shape of hard drives to contain information electronic bits that copy copyrighted songs. Every time copyright length is increased, it certainly is a takings issue diminishing the value of all real property, transferring value from one group of citizens (the public domain) to another group of citizens (copyright holders) without compensation. No, it actually transfers public domain property into the hands on an exclusive monopoly minority. At a minimum, the law should demonstrate that increasing the length of copyright increases the progress of the useful Arts, and I doubt those increases ever have even pretended to offer such justification.
Copyright Takings is a new legal argument that could possibly get some good mileage at the appeals level, especially including at the Supreme Court with the recent new appointees. Current copyright law is unconstitutional on many different levels. And that argument can certainly be applied to all copyrighted works that have had the length of exclusive monopoly extended from previous shorter copyright term lengths. It could be useful in a challenge of laws like the DMCA and the past copyright extension acts, as additional argument on top of the constitutional challenges on the grounds of excessive fines and non-contemporary limited copyright term lengths.
Your post does deserve a +5 interesting mod.
Creators can be and are compensated voluntarily in the free market for creative production. And they would be even more better compensated with the elimination of copyrights and patents. The ultimate economic incentive for new creation doesn't begin nor end with artificial government interference in the market. CASE CLOSED. Copyrights and Patents are UNCONSTITUTIONAL precisely because they INHIBIT the Progress of Science and the Useful arts. No other tangential points such as the welfare of authors are material or matter to the fundamental Constitutional justification of ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY.
It would make for an interesting academic study to discern the average length of fair use clips, from movie review television shows, to .mp3 clips from iTunes and Amazon, to excerpts of text from books, to photographs in magazines of pieces of artwork like a painting or statue. It ranges from like 1% to 100% depending upon the medium.
:P If the music industry were to insist on 5 second maximum clip lengths, no doubt that would cut into the business profitability of internet retailers like iTunes and Amazon as lower sales resulted from consumers gambling on unknown Monty Hall boxes of quality and value.
Say the average song length is 200 seconds, a 5 second clip is 2.5% of the work, a 30 second clip is 15% of the work. Most book publishers limit the resale of academic for sale course packets to 10% of the book (if more than 10% they generally insist the book be purchased if it's still in print). Paparazzi can take as many pictures of celebrities in public as they wish.
But I would argue the music industry itself has set a 30 second clip fair use standard as evidenced by retailer "best practices", let's call it "prior art".
So if P2P file sharing is "illegal" then the "deep packet inspection" software programs the RIAA are insisting Universities install are also "illegal", no matter whether certain aspects of both processes are more or less automatic or more or less manual. If the RIAA has a right to wholesale examine the contents of all files on the internet to look for copyright violations, then so too does every single individual P2P user. The label "pirate" is nothing less than a fraudulently inaccurate intentionally distorted ad hominem criminally impeding the process of both legal and educational discovery.
IF?
.mp3 files, distribution liability cannot begin before the parties are notified by certified legal disclosure that the files are copyrighted.
There is no proof, either way. And you are trying to assign liability to someone for the discrete separate actions of other parties, and in that case every distributor could shirk responsibility by assigning blame to a prior distributor, legal or illegal, which would be just as absurd. These files are not instantaneously copied in whole either. And copying parts of files is consistent with fair use. Every packet of a file which is copied in real time is copying fractions of a second of possibly or possibly not copyrighted content. Every single packet which is copied is fair use legal. There is no copyright infringement whatsoever from copying anywhere from 5 second to 30 second clips of copyrighted songs. Legal thirty second clips are routinely made available from many sources from "For Sale" retailers.
There are not any signs posted on these files. There's no "No Trespassing" sign, no "Beware of RIAA Dog" sign, no "Copyright" sign, no "Wet Floor" sign. And such signs wouldn't exist if they didn't effect liability. We may as well hold the RIAA criminally liable for songs containing "mature lyrics" which are heard and distributed to minors since those songs are allegedly the "property" of the RIAA. As there is no definitive discerned private party copyright demarcation on most if not all
Actually the RIAA may be trying to forge "evidence" and committing fraud by artificially spamming take down notices in order to trigger legal clauses calling for penalties on academic funding and requiring the purchase and installation of their proprietary "deep packet inspection" spyware software programs. They've been pushing legislation that equates "take down notices" or subpoenas with evidence of copyright infringement requiring legislative action triggers. This is an attack on taxpayers, an attack on education, and an attack on Constitutional civil law.
Since this is "religious" theoretical physics, why doesn't all matter randomly break down into simplest particle elements and travel randomly in all directions? Why is the Universe proposed to simulate a flat plane rather than a sphere? Why doesn't all matter stick in the exact same (smallest imaginable) point? How can new stuff "squeeze" in, such as the formation of stars and planets? Light is a part of the set Universe; how could the universe "expand" or it's expansion "accelerate"? Really, do theoretical physicists claim the universe could never at any time have expanded at more than the speed of light, all the way back to the "big bang", and that it has been constantly accelerating ever since the beginning? The expansion of the Universe has been constantly accelerating, but still accelerating at less than the speed of light ever since the beginning? And why and how does light even travel in the first place?
I don't think we fully understand the properties of magnetism, let alone its effects on light and matter. IMHO, I think the theories are faulty on "time". That's the only constant in the universe; time can only move forward at a constant "speed". It's impossible to go back to "before", and it moves at the exact same speed everywhere, always. I think all those examples of "clocks" moving at different speeds on spaceships versus the Earth, are complete B.S. Nobody would travel and come back still "young" to find their friends "old"; everyone would always age exactly at the same rate, no matter where you went, what you did, or what speed you did anything at, unless you affected the speed of human aging itself (a much more likely first technological breakthrough than faster than light speed travel), which is completely independent of "time".
P.S. Is it possible to calculate how fast the Earth is moving in the Universe, and if so, what is the answer? Or is three dimensional x,y,z reference in the Universe impossible w.r.t the Universe itself? If the latter, it would seem to me saying light speed is the maximum speed for all matter is hugely *speculative*, just as *speculative* as the claim that faster than light speed travel is possible.
And somebody tell me how telescopes allow us to see "further" light if light cannot be sped up? Don't telescopes imply we see further light sooner, thus affecting the observation of distance and speed of light w/o.r.t. time? Shouldn't the idea of telescopes and binoculars be impossible if the speed of light was finite constant?
Copyrighted files are not banned "illegal" things. Perhaps you mean "intent to illegally distribute" to become illegal? So like drugs, if you have say more than 4 or 5 copyrighted files you are guilty of "intent to illegally distribute"? And that would apply to all files on a computer connected to the internet? Lol. Once again, that would be trillions of dollars of legal liability and total legal systemic meltdown.